4.7 Article

Sweet corn growth and GrainYield as influenced by irrigation and wheat residue management

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105748

关键词

Water savings; Water stress; Biological yield; Organic carbon

资金

  1. Graduate Center of Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
  2. Research Council of Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) residues and water management are major problems in southern part of Iran where irrigated wheat-corn (Zea mays L.)-wheat rotation is a common practice. A 2-year (2015-2016) field experiment was conducted as a split plot design with four replications to determine the influence of different irrigation regimes (50, 70, and 100% of water requirement) and wheat residue rates (0, 25, and 50%) incorporation into the soil on sweet corn (Zea mays L V. Saccharata) growth, grain yield, and some soil properties at School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. The results showed that the highest plant height (187.12 cm) and leaf area index (3.49) were obtained when the crop was normally irrigated (100% of water requirement) and sown into the 25% incorporated wheat residues. Furthermore, canned yield (68%) and water use efficiency (WUE) increased with normal irrigation and 25% residue incorporation compared to the 50% wheat residue rate. The highest grain protein (14.67%) was achieved under incorporation of either 25 or 50% wheat residue into the soil, while the highest grain sugar (2643.5 mg g(-1)) was obtained when the crop was moderately irrigated (70% of water requirement) with 25% residue incorporation into the soil. The highest soil nitrogen (N) and soil organic carbon (SOC) were achieved with normal irrigation and 50% residue incorporation in both years.In general, adopting an adequate rate of wheat residue (between 25%-50%) accompanied by decreasing irrigation volume to 70% water requirement of corn is recommended in semi-arid agroecosystems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据